Ohio smokers: get a fucking grip

[lowbrass]

@danceswithcats

If Joe wants to have Joe’s restaurant, bar, or whatever as a smoking facility, then with a proper sign the folks who wish to be free of smoke can patronize another business. I see it as no different than a topless bar. If you don’t want to look at semi-naked women, don’t pull into the parking lot, don’t go inside, and don’t try to eliminate what a segment of the population enjoys.

1. See post #5.

2. Topless bars are very heavily regulated, and only allowed in a few places, so if your point is that you don’t want smoking to be regulated, that’s a poor analogy to use.

3. Before there were laws regulating smoking, virtually ALL bars and restaurants allowed smoking. So “patronizing another business” was not a choice, because there weren’t any - not until regulations were put in place. Look, non-smokers got tired of not being able to ever go out without choking on smoke and having our clothes stink when we got home, so we passed some laws. Deal with it.

[Ludovic]

By definition, around 50% of those seeking SSM are 'smokers.

[lowbrass]

What is SSM? Can’t you just write it out?

[lowbrass]

Oh wait - I finally figured it out - same sex marriage. Never mind.

[Foxy40]

@hajario

Before the California statewide ban was passed, the city of Los Angeles enacted one. Oh how the bar and restaurant owners whined about how they were going to lose business to people who were going to go outside the city limits to places that allowed smoking. Fact is, business went up. For the most part, the smokers went to their favorite places anyway (much easier granted when there isn’t freezing weather and a foot of snow on the ground) and the non-smokers came out in droves.

The California laws were passed as an occupational safety issue. Business owners can’t expose their employees to asbestos or polonium or second hand smoke. The patrons have nothing to do with it.

I visited Dublin in 2005, shortly after a smoking ban in pubs went through. Of course, for the cultural experience alone, I had to stop at as many pubs as I possibly could during my vacation.

At every entrance there were smokers outside and in every establishment there were empty seats. There were also really pissed off owners and bartenders. Why? Because when these folks were outside smoking, they were not inside drinking.

I don’t know if the same thing happened in Ireland as CA and I am wondering. Is anyone from the Dublin area and can say how the privately owned establishments are now doing compared to pre 2005?

[Foxy40]

@lowbrass

1. See post #5.

2. Topless bars are very heavily regulated, and only allowed in a few places, so if your point is that you don’t want smoking to be regulated, that’s a poor analogy to use.

3. Before there were laws regulating smoking, virtually ALL bars and restaurants allowed smoking. So “patronizing another business” was not a choice, because there weren’t any - not until regulations were put in place. Look, non-smokers got tired of not being able to ever go out without choking on smoke and having our clothes stink when we got home, so we passed some laws. Deal with it.

Well as long as YOU don’t like it, I guess smokers don’t get to do it. Oh wait, I think smokers like it. Yes, but they don’t count because they are not you. Business owners were running their establishments they way they wanted to. Catering to the clients that they wanted to have. Because certain people didn’t like it, they got together and make the business owners change. However, there is no connection here between Nazi Germany and the dictating to business owners? I seem to remember the majority of the Germans not wanting the Jews to have the right to run their own businesses the way they wanted either.

Seems to me choices are just peachy as long as they agree with your preferences.

( I am an ex smoker and don’t give a hoot whether someone is smoking around me or not. I have more important things to worry about. However, it does concern me when people’s right are being taken away.)

[hajario]

Hey Foxy40, did you read the entire thread before posting that or did you just not understand any of it. I am going with the latter because anyone who seriously thinks that a smoking ban is in any way analogous to a Nazi dictatorship has some serious mental comprehension problems.

I’ll try again.

1. By law, business owners have to limit their employees exposure to hazardous health conditions as much as possible. Do you agree that this is a good thing?
2. Second hand cigarette smoke has been proven to be detrimental to the health of people who are exposed to it. Do you agree that this is true?

Get it?

[Foxy40]

@hajario

Hey Foxy40, did you read the entire thread before posting that or did you just not understand any of it. I am going with the latter because anyone who seriously thinks that a smoking ban is in any way analogous to a Nazi dictatorship has some serious mental comprehension problems.

I’ll try again.

1. By law, business owners have to limit their employees exposure to hazardous health conditions as much as possible. Do you agree that this is a good thing?
2. Second hand cigarette smoke has been proven to be detrimental to the health of people who are exposed to it. Do you agree that this is true?

Get it?

I believe in the rights of business owners to determine who works for them and who patronizes their businesses. I believe government interference in the rights of public citizen’s ability to earn a living and how to do so is wrong. I also believe that if you are convinced that all of these smoking bans are for employee health, you are sadly mistaken, misinformed and I am embarrassed for you. If that were the case, smoking would be prohibited inside across the board and not just at eating establishments or other selective places that entitlement fools can get their claws in. Or maybe, in Florida, employees that work in bars are somehow immuned? Interesting enough, the service industry has a very large smoking population. I don’t know if a study has been done about this but I do know from personal experience.
It is all about those that don’t like it and now have health justification against those people like me that say “I will not give up my rights and I would not have you give up yours.”
Peace

[hajario]

All of that talk and you didn’t bother to answer my two simple questions.

Obviously there are all sorts of agendas going on with the various smoking bans. This is true of most legislation. No one in their right mind would argue otherwise.

Let’s stick to the Ohio ban since that is the subject of the OP. The law changed because around two thirds of the population voted for it. This isn’t the government arbitrarily taking away rights. This was the will of the people. Any Ohio resident is free to get the signatures to try and get the law repealed.

[villa]

@hajario

1. By law, business owners have to limit their employees exposure to hazardous health conditions as much as possible. Do you agree that this is a good thing?
2. Second hand cigarette smoke has been proven to be detrimental to the health of people who are exposed to it. Do you agree that this is true?

Get it?

Define “as much as possible.” I think it is more likely that an employer has an obligation to take all reasonable steps to limit exposure to hazardous health conditions. That’s not the same thing at all.

I find the employee’s health arguments to be by far the strongest of the arguments, but even here there has to be an element of employee choice involved. If you don’t believe me there are plenty of bar staff who would prefer to work in a smoking environment (as well I am sure as plenty who would prefer not to) then you should come out for a drink with me to the local cigar bar (though it probably would be a little smoky for you to be honest). Given the existance of a significant number of people who want to run smoking bars, people who want to work in smoking bars, and people who want to drink (and smoke) in smoking bars, doesn’t it seem to make sense to allow a certain proportion of bars to remain smoking friendly?

As for the second question, I genuinely don’t know if that has been proven. I think it is bloody obvious it is harmful, but I could not tell you if that had be proven in any sense. I assume it has.

[hajario]

@villa

Define “as much as possible.” I think it is more likely that an employer has an obligation to take all reasonable steps to limit exposure to hazardous health conditions. That’s not the same thing at all.

You are correct. I like your description here better.

[hajario]

Hit submit too soon.

@villa

I find the employee’s health arguments to be by far the strongest of the arguments, but even here there has to be an element of employee choice involved. If you don’t believe me there are plenty of bar staff who would prefer to work in a smoking environment (as well I am sure as plenty who would prefer not to) then you should come out for a drink with me to the local cigar bar (though it probably would be a little smoky for you to be honest). Given the existance of a significant number of people who want to run smoking bars, people who want to work in smoking bars, and people who want to drink (and smoke) in smoking bars, doesn’t it seem to make sense to allow a certain proportion of bars to remain smoking friendly?

Would it be ok for a coal miner to agree to work without a respirator in exchange for more money or because he thinks that the respirator is uncomfortable? Maybe so.

Actually, I enjoy a good cigar from time to time. I’m not much for bars though, smoking or non-smoking.

[villa]

[QUOTE=hajario]
Would it be ok for a coal miner to agree to work without a respirator in exchange for more money or because he thinks that the respirator is uncomfortable? Maybe so.
QUOTE]

I am not certain. This is where my individualism and my unionism clash. Thats when I fall back on a sliding scale kind of argument and look to the degree of harm involved. That might not give an answer here, however. But the situations aren’t identical. Given the number of bars, its far more likely that a bartender will have a true choice available to them of whether they work in Joe’s Tavern, which permits its customers to smoke, or Fred’s Taproom, on the next block, which does not.

That sort of choice isn’t likely to exist for coal miners. I do, generally, support the right of people to take decisions regarding their own wellbeing, provided they have real options. I’m not sure that mine would exist in the market place, but I am 100% certain smoking bars fully staffed would exist if permitted.

[lowbrass]

@Foxy40

Well as long as YOU don’t like it, I guess smokers don’t get to do it. Oh wait, I think smokers like it. Yes, but they don’t count because they are not you.

You can still smoke, just not in certain public places. I like to take a shit, but I’m not allowed to do it on the floor in a public place. Nobody’s telling me I can’t shit.

Business owners were running their establishments they way they wanted to. Catering to the clients that they wanted to have. Because certain people didn’t like it, they got together and make the business owners change. However, there is no connection here between Nazi Germany and the dictating to business owners? I seem to remember the majority of the Germans not wanting the Jews to have the right to run their own businesses the way they wanted either.

Yes, this is exactly like Nazi Germany in every way. :rolleyes:

Seems to me choices are just peachy as long as they agree with your preferences.

When you were a smoker, I’ll bet you were happy as a clam back when virtually every business allowed smoking, and there were virtually no non-smoking establishments. Face it, smokers are only bitching now because the tide has turned, and things don’t agree with their preferences.

( I am an ex smoker and don’t give a hoot whether someone is smoking around me or not. I have more important things to worry about. However, it does concern me when people’s right are being taken away.)

You have no “right” to smoke cigarettes in public places.

[villa]

@lowbrass

You have no “right” to smoke cigarettes in public places.

I agree with this. I also think though that you have no “right” to dictate that cigarettes are not smoked on private property.

[hajario]

@villa

I am not certain. This is where my individualism and my unionism clash. Thats when I fall back on a sliding scale kind of argument and look to the degree of harm involved. That might not give an answer here, however.

I am with you here. I am conflicted on these sorts of laws. I am generally pro-business and think that business owners should have a lot of latitude in general. Then again, I like things to be decided by a vote of the people at the community or state level as is what happened in Ohio. It’s tough but I think that the health issue wins out.

[lowbrass]

@villa

I agree with this. I also think though that you have no “right” to dictate that cigarettes are not smoked on private property.

I disagree. The government regulates privately-owned businesses all the time, in any number of ways. Some examples were mentioned already: They must have fire doors, they must refrigerate food, they must have a certain degree of cleanliness, they can be subject to noise ordinances, etc. Being privately-owned doesn’t mean it’s not a public place.

[lowbrass]

Another good example: They have to provide access to the handicapped. The government has a right to, and does, require this.

[villa]

@lowbrass

I disagree. The government regulates privately-owned businesses all the time, in any number of ways. Some examples were mentioned already: They must have fire doors, they must refrigerate food, they must have a certain degree of cleanliness, they can be subject to noise ordinances, etc. Being privately-owned doesn’t mean it’s not a public place.

Well duh, of course. Just like the government can state one is allowed to smoke in a public place.

No one disputes the government can regulate private businesses in many ways. I actually said you didn’t have a right to dictate about private property. It wasn’t meant to be a deep meaningful point. More a comment on your seeming sense of entitlement that every place you might have any interest in entering should be required to be smoke free.

[Zakalwe]

@black rabbit

So it’s not just that gays can’t get married and can’t sign their civil union cards or whatever - if a private agency receives any state funding at all, they’re not allowed to offer health insurance to the domestic partners of their employees. The multi-thousand-dollar power-of-attorney-cum-inheritance business-type contract arrangements that some G/L couples have set up to give their partners minimal rights in lieu of any spousal priveledges are being questioned.

Complete hijack, but can you please give a cite for the bolded portion above?